Now, if like me, you are wondering: what causes this? And what’s
specifically so attractive about Romney compared to Obama, and
how, practically speaking, is one of these centrists more
attractive to certain donors than the other? One answer can be
found in this headline:

According to the article, the objective of these steps from
Obama’s new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
“to bolster fairness and clarity in residential
lending, including requiring a good-faith estimate of costs for
homebuyers. The proposed rules have two central elements — the
loan estimate and the closing disclosure — that would provide
would-be homebuyers with a simple accounting of likely payments
and fees to prevent costly surprises.”

Now, who could be against truth and openness? Actually, a lot of
people. First of all, the lenders themselves—and they’re a giant
and highly profitable industry—benefit when the public does not
fully understand how a loan will affect them. The less we know,
the worse decisions we make, and the better they do. If you don’t
think that’s the case, then you have never accidentally incurred
a late charge or seen your interest rate suddenly leap.

Second of all, there are the people (you know who you are) who
are so sclerotically angry at the very idea of government that
any kind of government activity—even of this sort, that really
does benefit the average person—is seen as more unwelcome
intrusion.

Those of us who benefit from the new disclosure rules, by and
large, are people without a lot of money. We’re people who can’t
afford to hire lawyers to sort out the fine print, and we’re
usually the ones who get the worst deals. We can’t and generally
don’t donate to candidates.

Romney consistently criticizes regulatory moves that the Obama
administration makes, so when it comes to the cash sweepstakes,
he’s the winner.

As much as Romney and Obama are similar on so many of the biggest
issues, it’s usually in matters like this—that represent at least
a partial amelioration of the way that the powerful can and do
repeatedly hoodwink the rest of us—where we can see a difference.

The bottom line is that there really is a substantive
difference between the two candidates—only it’s much, much
smaller than one might hope for in a truly competitive, vibrant
democracy.

Those differences don’t seem like much to most of us, but they do
to the folks with the big bucks. While many of the biggest firms
hedge their bets, and give heavily to both men, enough of the
wealthiest will give only to Romney to put him well ahead. And
when you take into account the unlimited spending of SuperPACS and the new breed of nonprofit outfits that
don’t have to name their donors, the difference can be
decisive.

You don’t have to be a partisan to recognize the point. And
that’s at least one of the reasons Romney can outraise Obama. And
with all the extra cash, he can run lots of ads about how, when
he beats Obama, he will eliminate “unnecessary regulation.” As
for the president, he has to hope that he has enough money to
tell people how and why the relatively tame sort of regulation he
proposes actually benefits them.